Traffic Ticket Advice

[Noah Zark]

If I were a LEO, I know I'd write far more citations for the following situations than for speeding:

Not having lights on at dusk or other adverse weather conditions

Failure to keep right except to pass on multi-lane highways -- "left lane bandits" that ride the left lane for miles -- endemic in Ohio, in my opinion based on scores of thousands of miles driven on the OH Turnpike and other multi-lane OH roads.

Failure to keep right of center when making a turn - lazy drivers that take "LeMans" turns at intersections instead of making a "square" turn. The town in which I live is nasty for drivers cutting corners when making a turn.

Obstructed vision (tons of crap hanging from the interior rear view mirror)

Obstructed vision (not taking the time to scrape ice and snow from all wndows)

Obstructed vision (window film treatments that don't meet state DOT requirements)

Equipment Failure -- Trailer brake and signal lights that don't work


Noah

 

[MaximumLawman]

I got an idea - how about writing tickets for offenses you know people may actually be guilty of instead of making it up as you go along?

Because cops are generally decent people and they often don't want to hold people responsible for what they actually did, but rather give them a break by writing them for something with less severe consequences. Especially the points for insurance. But like I said before, no good deed goes unpunished. I gave a guy a ticket for 'no seatbelt' once when I stopped him for speed 30+ over. He had tinted windows, no insurance, he failed to signal a lane change and he had the wrong plates on the car. He didn't look like he was in a position to afford a few grand in fines, so I wrote him a ticket for the seatbelt and handed it to him. He implied I was just stopping him based on his race and told me he was wearing his seatbelt but took it off before I got to the car, and that I couldn't have seen it because his windows were tinted.

I explained to him that I stopped him for the speed and was giving him a BREAK by writing him a $50.00 seatbelt ticket. He went on about how this was nothin' but a humbug and I was screwing with him based on race. Apparently his windows were light enough to let me see his skin tone, but too dark to permit me to see whether he had his seatbelt on.

I obliged him and took the seatbelt ticket back and wrote him for 65/35, no insurance, expired plates, tinted windows, fail to signal lane change and I took his car.

I can't believe so many people are so dense as to not recognize when they're getting a break. I'm often tempted to say "From now on, NOBODY gets a break. Everyone gets a ticket for the straight up violation I observe" but then I figure most people are not morons and I shouldn't be less decent to the ones who aren't because of the ones who are. And it never fails....I mull over whether I should give a borderline case a break, I give them one and then get a notice to appear in court because they want to contest a no points violation when I could have slammed them with 3 or 4 points and a fine of a hundred bucks more.

Know why some cops are pricks? Cuz some of you WANT them to be!!

 

[TRanger]

Have to agree with MaximumLawman. Some folks either don't understand or don't appreciate that they're being cut some slack. A recent example. I stopped a guy for speeding. Rather than write him for the moving violation, I wrote him for a lesser non-moving; a significant reduction in fine and no points. He decides to contest this in court. Judge finds him guilty. Instead of the $98.00 fine he could have paid, the judge fines him $300.00 plus court costs. Grand total-over $500.00.

 

[scooter123]

Actually, if you do a google search for the term "steady yellow signal" you will find that the state statute for nearly every single state uses the exact same working.

"A steady yellow signal means that the light will be changing to red and you may not enter the intersection after the light has changed to red." The reason that nearly every single state has the exact same working is because it's a Federal Requirement for the state to qualify for DOT matching funds. Even when the wording is not an exact match, the intent is without any debate identical.

Bottomline, under the Law you are permitted to proceed through an intersection if you ENTERED that intersection BEFORE the light changed to RED. There is Nothing in the Statute that says you have to stop for a yellow, in fact the word Stop is not even mentioned. If a cop were to cite me for going through a yellow light, I would request very nicely if he would note on the citation that I did not stop for a yellow light when I could have. Then I would print out the state statute, go to court and ask for a dismissal. Because of what he wrote in on the citation in the notes area, he cannot change his story in court without the risk of facing perjury charges, which most cops are not going to do. So, he is caught between what he documented and the State Statute that was written in compliance with a Federal Mandate. Once presented with the actual Statute, and the testimony documented on the citation, any reasonably smart Judge will just dismiss the charges. If he doesn't you can always appeal. Push that appeal to the State Supreme Court and anyone who ever got cited for going through on a yellow can demand a refund, which is Big Bucks.

 

[straightshooter1]

"Interesting position you are taking with your second paragraph. But your first paragraph says a lot. There are two laws. Those for the police, and it extends to the politicians, and one for 'normal' citizens. And the police wonder why the average American generally doesn't like them. Thin corrupt line? Perhaps...policing is a mind-numbing crap job, and it attracts certain people for a reason...the perks.

First post! Let's see if I can get me banned right off the bat.

NF"

Given NonFascio's first post on this Forum, quoted above, I can understand his post on this thread where he thinks the officer should write tickets for offenses the officer can prove, or are really guilty of and the reason he feels ANY ticket is not a "break."

If someone is caught driving, say, 85 in a 55 MPH zone, and the officer writes him for 65 in a 55 MPH zone, the driver IS guilty of that offense. He was driving 10 MPH over the limit, wasn't he? and 20 MPH and 30 MPH also.

The officer certainly DID give him a break if there are less points or a lesser fine for 10 over the limit than for 30 over.

But, there are just some people who don't like police officers and who will never appreciate anything the officer does or will see some dark purpose in the officer's actions regardless of the situation.

On another Forum, there's a 13 page thread largely vilifying an officer who gave a driver a warning rather than a ticket! Some posters think the officer was abusing his authority by lecturing the motorist rather than writing him. The OP was upset about the officer's facial expressions and the "smirk" he observed on the officer's face.

Certainly nobody really wants a ticket of any kind, points or no points.

But, for me, if I have committed a traffic offense, I would be grateful for ANY break that costs me less money or less points.

But, then again, I don't think most folks enter into police work for the "perks."

Bob

 

[MaximumLawman]

"A steady yellow signal means that the light will be changing to red and you may not enter the intersection after the light has changed to red." The reason that nearly every single state has the exact same working is because it's a Federal Requirement for the state to qualify for DOT matching funds. Even when the wording is not an exact match, the intent is without any debate identical.

Not sure where you got that from, but here's the law in VA. If it's not reasonably safe to procede, you have to stop on an amber. If you're not in the intersection (and the beginning of the intersection is generally the property line, which is usually the near end of the sidewalk), and you can't go through the intersection reasonably safely, you have to stop. If you're not already into the intersection and your amber has been amber for a couple seconds, it ain't reasonably safe to blast through the intersection. That's a judgement call for the cop. But there are very few cops who stop for amber violations. Typically, the cop sits where he can see the light. And if the light 90 degrees away from yours is green, yours isn't going to be green or amber at the same time, it's going to be red. 99% of the time, amber light tickets are "I gave you a break" tickets, OR, "I didn't want to argue with you" tickets.

§ 46.2-833. Traffic lights; penalty.

A. Signals by traffic lights shall be as follows:

Steady red indicates that moving traffic shall stop and remain stopped as long as the red signal is shown, except in the direction indicated by a lighted green arrow.

Green indicates the traffic shall move in the direction of the signal and remain in motion as long as the green signal is given, except that such traffic shall yield to other vehicles and pedestrians lawfully within the intersection.

Steady amber indicates that a change is about to be made in the direction of the moving of traffic. When the amber signal is shown, traffic which has not already entered the intersection, including the crosswalks, shall stop if it is not reasonably safe to continue, but traffic which has already entered the intersection shall continue to move until the intersection has been cleared. The amber signal is a warning that the steady red signal is imminent.

Flashing red indicates that traffic shall stop before entering an intersection.

Flashing amber indicates that traffic may proceed through the intersection or past such signal with reasonable care under the circumstances.

B. If the traffic lights controlling an intersection are out of service because of a power failure or other event that prevents the giving of signals by the traffic lights, the drivers of vehicles approaching such an intersection shall proceed as though such intersection were controlled by a stop sign on all approaches. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to: intersections controlled by portable stop signs, intersections with law-enforcement officers or other authorized persons directing traffic, or intersections controlled by traffic lights displaying flashing red or flashing amber lights as provided in subsection A.

C. The driver of any motor vehicle may be detained or arrested for a violation of this section if the detaining law-enforcement officer is in uniform, displays his badge of authority, and (i) has observed the violation or (ii) has received a message by radio or other wireless telecommunication device from another law-enforcement officer who observed the violation. In the case of a person being detained or arrested based on a radio message, the message shall be sent immediately after the violation is observed, and the observing officer shall furnish the license number or other positive identification of the vehicle to the detaining officer.

Violation of any provision of this section shall constitute a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of no more than $350.

(Code 1950, § 46-203; 1952, c. 671; 1954, c. 381; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-184; 1964, c. 613; 1966, c. 607; 1970, cc. 515, 736; 1972, cc. 4, 234, 454; 1974, c. 347; 1976, cc. 30, 31; 1977, c. 9; 1978, c. 300; 1981, c. 163; 1989, c. 727; 2000, c. 834; 2004, cc. 252, 743; 2006, c. 928.)

Here's another state. Gotta stop for this yellow if you can safely do so:

257.612 Traffic control signals; location; red arrow and yellow arrow indications; colors; traffic control signal at place other than intersection; stopping at sign, marking, or signal; violation of subsection (1) or (2) as civil infraction; approaching person using wheelchair or device to aid walking; violation of subsection (4) as misdemeanor; location of sign prohibiting turn on red signal; additional sign.
Sec. 612.

(1) When traffic is controlled by traffic control signals, not fewer than 1 signal shall be located over the traveled portion of the roadway so as to give vehicle operators a clear indication of the right-of-way assignment from their normal positions approaching the intersection. The vehicle signals shall exhibit different colored lights successively, 1 at a time, or with arrows. Red arrow and yellow arrow indications have the same meaning as the corresponding circular indications, except that they apply only to vehicle operators intending to make the movement indicated by the arrow. The following colors shall be used, and the terms and lights shall indicate and apply to vehicle operators as follows:

(a) If the signal exhibits a green indication, vehicular traffic facing the signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at that place prohibits either turn. Vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited.

(b) If the signal exhibits a steady yellow indication, vehicular traffic facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at the intersection or at a limit line when marked, but if the stop cannot be made in safety, a vehicle may be driven cautiously through the intersection.

(c) If the signal exhibits a steady red indication, the following apply:

(i) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or at a limit line when marked or, if there is no crosswalk or limit line, before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown, except as provided in subparagraph (ii).

(ii) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal, after stopping before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or at a limit line when marked or, if there is no crosswalk or limit line, before entering the intersection, may make a right turn from a 1-way or 2-way street into a 2-way street or into a 1-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn or may make a left turn from a 1-way or 2-way street into a 1-way roadway carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn, unless prohibited by sign, signal, marking, light, or other traffic control device. The vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.

(d) If the signal exhibits a steady green arrow indication, vehicular traffic facing the green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may cautiously enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by the arrow or other movement permitted by other indications shown at the same time. The vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.

(2) If a traffic control signal is erected and maintained at a place other than an intersection, the provisions of this section apply except for those provisions that by their nature cannot apply. Any stop required shall be made at a sign or marking on the pavement indicating where the stop shall be made, but in the absence of a sign or marking, the stop shall be made at the signal.

(3) A person who violates subsection (1) or (2) is responsible for a civil infraction.

(4) A vehicle operator who approaches a person using a wheelchair or a device to aid the person to walk at a crosswalk or any other pedestrian crossing shall take necessary precautions to avoid accident or injury to the person using the wheelchair or device. A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(5) A sign prohibiting a turn on a red signal as provided in subsection (1)(c)(ii) shall be located above or adjacent to the traffic control signal or as close as possible to the point where the turn is made, or at both locations, so that 1 or more of the signs are visible to a vehicle operator intending to turn, at the point where the turn is made. An additional sign may be used at the far side of the intersection in the direct line of vision of the turning vehicle operator.

If a cop were to cite me for going through a yellow light, I would request very nicely if he would note on the citation that I did not stop for a yellow light when I could have.

I don't take suggestions for what to write on my tickets. I'd just let you tell the magistrate that you ran a yellow that you could have stopped for.

 

[gunsmith11]

I got a seat belt ticket about 4 years ago, didn't have a ticket for almost 40 years prior, what did piss me off was the fine was $ 50.00 but the court cost was $ 85.00 and I did not even go to court,,,,IMHO a lot of tickets are just a money grab, yes I did break the law, but the way you have to pay really sucks.

 

[MaximumLawman]

Also.....when you're looking for traffic law, here's a hint: Don't google search the violation, do a google search, for example, for "Virginia Motor Vehicle Code". That will generally get you to the state's legislative site where you can find a searchable motor vehicle code. If you're looking for local ords, go to www.municode.com and find your locality. They don't have them all, but they have a lot and it's free. If you can't do that, the state law is almost always the same as the local traffic law. They just pass the law as a local ord. to collect more of the revenue. No sense giving more to the state than you have to.

If you do get a ticket for some kind of screwy local ord that doesn't mirror a state statute, you can get a copy of it at your local clerk's office.

Typically around here, a local traffic offense results in the local municipality getting about $75.00 of a $135.00 ticket. If it was written as a state violation, locals would get about $10.00 to $25.00 of it. Nothing wrong with keeping it local.

I got a seat belt ticket about 4 years ago, didn't have a ticket for almost 40 years prior, what did piss me off was the fine was $ 50.00 but the court cost was $ 85.00 and I did not even go to court,,,,IMHO a lot of tickets are just a money grab, yes I did break the law, but the way you have to pay really sucks.

They probably did that to tack extra money on to a ticket where the state gets most of the fine. We don't do that where I work. We get very little money from a $65.00 seatbelt ticket. Maybe $10.00. The rest goes to the state, even when the ticket is written as a local ord. Not sure why that is.

But hey, you're in TEXAS. Every traffic violation is a misdemeanor there. Technically they don't have to write you a ticket, because they can lock you UP! There was was a pretty noteworthy case on that a while back. The "Soccer Mom" case.

 

[rchance]

I personally would call the courthouse, ask what kind of violation inattentive is and how much would the fine be. If it's a non moving violation with no points on license then I would pay it and move on. If it's a major violation I would talk to the DA or Judge and ask for a non moving violation like a seatbelt ect.... If you have a good driving record most likely they will change this for you or worst case you may have to Hire a Lawyer. I was caught speeding in Tennessee a few years ago so I went to traffic court. The judge ask those here for speeding violations stand up so we did so. He then ask all of us to either attend driving school at $50 or plede our case. Needless to say we all hit the door and attended driving school. Driving school was actually pretty interesting and I would gladly take that option again if needed.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

No disrespect Lawman, but the LEO's around here are under extreme pressure to multiply their proceeds without regard to method or credibility. The book went out the window. The school zone signs are back in the "safety" patrol car trunks in the summer, 25-30 people are getting stoppped en masse and cited for driving through the same red light when the majority clearly did not and the last ones barely clear the intersection with the light still green. Many will choose to pay.

 

[MaximumLawman]

No disrespect Lawman, but the LEO's around here are under extreme pressure to multiply their proceeds without regard to method or credibility. The book went out the window. The school zone signs are back in the "safety" patrol car trunks in the summer, 25-30 people are getting stoppped en masse and cited for driving through the same red light when the majority clearly did not and the last ones barely clear the intersection with the light still green. Many will choose to pay.

There's no doubt that some cities use traffic enforcement to generate revenue. Equally dubious is when they cave in to citizen demands that the police "do something" about the terrible (in their eyes) traffic problems when there's not a problem in the first place.

 

[kennyb]

Here are four alternatives:
1. Hire a lawyer. You are right-this needs to be fought. Get experts to measure the timing of the light. Get engineers to gauge the cooefficent of friction on the roat to prove you operated safely, that you could not have made a safe stop which is why you ran the yellow light. Total cost-probably around 7-8k after paying expert fees and lawyer fees, not to mention your time and you still might loose in court.
2. Hire a lawyer. Pay him $300 for his time. He will talk to the DA and get him to amend to a non moving violation-pay a fine and move on. It's off your record and just be more careful.
3. Talk to the DA yourself; chances are he will reduce to a non moving violation, let you pay a fine and move on.
4. Go to court yourself and fight it. If you are lucky it will only be twice, once for arraignment (which will take tou all day cause they ALWAYS take the traffic tickets last) and the next time for trial-which will also take all day cause they will do pleas first, then take the defendants with lawyers and then last take those who are "protecting their rights" themselves. You will probably have to come back a third day cause either, a) they run out of time or b) the cop doesn't show (the judge ALWAYS gives the state anothe bite at the apple-they won't dismiss until the cop doesn't show the second time).

If you're a local, I reccomend step # 3. If you're an out of towner, I suggest step # 2 (Judges & DA's DO take into account the fact that you are leaving a little bit of money in the local economy ) I DO NOT reccomend step #4 if you are an out of towner-Bad enough playing without homefield advantage and on your own is asking for it!!!!!

Back when I was young and idealistic and has time to burn I would right these wrongs, but after 27 years of practicing law, the idealism has pretty much been beat out of me and I'm pretty much just in it for the money.


And after it's all said and done.....FIDO - life is too short.

and under #4 you forgot to add...the attorney isn't in court...you know,he forgot he had court in another jurisdiction and leaves his client sitting all day..or he is in circuit court etc.

 

[kennyb]

I don't know how things work in VA, since I haven't gotten a ticket here. Back in MI, when I had to go to court over one, there was no arraignment or anything so convoluted. I just talked to the magistrate and told him what happened. The officer that wrote my ticket actually told me to go to court over it, that he had to write up "X", but he'd get it knocked down to "Y" in court. He was true to his word. I was the only one well dressed and not yelling, so the magistrate was also happy with me.

But I digress...

(This is one of those situations where Prepaid Legal is nice to have. You pay your monthly fee and not only do they write your threatening letters for you (you get X number a year, which pays for the cost of the membership), but they provide an attorney to go to court for you on any traffic matters as part of the plan. There I go digressing again...)

What I'd do, if you can spare the time, is go to court and talk to the magistrate/judge/whoever politely if you think that you're in the right. You certainly have the right to due process and availing yourself of a hearing and being heard. It could be that the presiding official will throw the ticket out or reduce the fine. Who knows. Doesn't hurt to try.

there is no arraignment in va.on a traffic charge...simply go to court on the date on the summons..barring something unusual,it will be head then unless you want to continue it for an attorney...my jurisdiction in less then 90 minutes south of fredricksburg and i have not heard of "inattentive driving"...its either something new since i retired or a city law there

 

[41]

Three second yellow

If you look at the timing of the yellow duration, it is usually three seconds. Depending on the width of the intersection that has to be crossed and the speed, there are a lot of cases where you can not cross the intersection without it changing to red.

I have read that some states/cities have realized the problem and have now increased the yellow to five seconds or longer. This has prevented rear end collisions and reduced red light running.

Still there will be some that will still try to run the yellow. And then there are those cities that only want the revenue.

I would check the intersection width and light timing and do some calculations to see if the yellow light duration is long enough to give warning to stop for the speed and stopping distance for the vehicle. If you were driving a tractor trailer, the probability is you can not stop in time without being in the intersection and smoking the tires.

 

[Hermann]

i also believe in admitting to a mistake and paying up. If you're guilty. While i agree most people probably say they "thought" the light was yellow, i don't agree that the officer is always right and the driver is always wrong. Yellow does mean caution, and be prepared to stop. But there's still such a thing as an unsafe stop, and unless you're in danger of hitting another vehicle in the intersection, sometimes it's safer to go through the light than it is to slam on your brakes and end up stopped in the middle of an intersection. I've received tickets in the past, and always paid them, because i was guilty. But i refuse to pay if i'm innocent. Leos are human and make mistakes too. Despite what some of them think.

very true !!!

 

[buckeyeshooter1]

ah yes, lovely Alabama! I once was ticketed for doing 32 in a 29 zone at 5am in the morning on the residentail section on University Drive in Auburn. I was probably the only car on the road for miles. I was starting a 742 mile commute 'home' to Columbus, Ohio for the Thanksgiving Holiday. Wonderful memories such as these give me great appreciation for LEO's---- NOT!

 

[MaximumLawman]

Wonderful memories such as these give me great appreciation for LEO's---- NOT!

Good thing most cops are way past expecting appreciation from anyone. When it comes, it's a small bonus. When it doesn't, it just doesn't.

I went into a smoky upper apartment once to get some kittens out while the lower apartment was on fire. I got them out and handed them to the owner and she never bothered to even say thanks. She was probably hoping they were roasting. A year later, we locked up a guy for a spouse abuse warrant and I recognized him as her boyfriend. I told him his girlfriend never said thanks for me saving her kittens. He said "See, I TOLD you she was a bitch!"

 

[safearm]

I've heard "If I ran a red light, he should have written me for the red light" in court so many times that I'm just about at the point where I'm going to start writing people for the exact violation every time. Same goes for "They just want your money so you don't show up in court, that's why they write you for a no points violation. So you just pay it and don't take it to court." Pretty soon, I'm going to start writing for the actual violation to avoid the appearance of impropriety. "Red Light" means a Red Light ticket. No more "Amber Lights", "Fail to Signal", etc.....Same goes for speeding. 85/55 is now 85/55. No more "5 Over". QUOTE]

I learned from an experienced partner in the first department where I was a sworn officer, if I was going to write a citation instead of a written or verbal warning, that the citation is exactly for the offense committed, i.e., 40 in a 25, disobeyed a traffic control device, etc. The first time I gave someone a break by reducing the speed on a citation, it would be used to question my integrity, "So officer, your radar indicated my client was going 40 mph, but you listed the speed as 30 on this affadavit (citation), thereby committing perjury."
If I wanted to give a person a break, based on the circumstances, then they would get a warning. If they decided to act like a jerk, I always had the ability to raise the ante, either with one or more citations.

 

[MaximumLawman]

The first time I gave someone a break by reducing the speed on a citation, it would be used to question my integrity, "So officer, your radar indicated my client was going 40 mph, but you listed the speed as 30 on this affadavit (citation), thereby committing perjury."

Did they accuse the prosecutor of perjury when they charged someone with Manslaughter when the elements of the crime fit a higher charge? That's a pretty weak argument by any lawyer, and I can't see them making it around here. All you have to do is dismiss the lower charge, and recharge with the higher offense. I've done it several times when someone wanted to make an issue out of it. Then the guy's client can charge the idiot with malpractice for talking him into a harsher charge.

If he was doing 40, he had to pass through 30 to get there, didn't he! Seeing your radar indicating 40 goes WAY beyond probable cause to believe he was doing 30, and that's all you need to charge him with 30. In some states you need even LESS than PC to issue a civil infraction. Also, the elements of the crime of perjory don't even come close to charging someone with a lesser traffic offense than what you observed.

I've never seen a reason to charge for the actual observed offense every time. I have no need to make someone's insurance company richer by raising their rates for the next couple years unless they really deserved the ticket. Like I said before, I'm not going to punish the majority for the stupidity of the very few, unlike some folks who don't appreciate any cops at all because one guy gave them a borderline ticket.

 

[2Loud4You]

Maximum Lawman, a lot of officers catch grief for doing their job. Let's face it, no one likes getting a ticket but most of the time the person deserved it. We all know cops are humans too so there are some bad seeds out there which is why I said "most of the time". I've gotten my fair share of tickets because I was speeding. If you drive a car you speed, even if it's an accident, it happens. You probably also break other traffic laws whether knowingly or not. Again, it happens.

I'll be the 1st to admit I get pi$$ed when I get a ticket but it's not at the officer, it's at me. My last ticket cost me $357 for 65 in a 35 because I was impatient due to a driver at a red light in front of me. It had been a long trip and I gunned it. I didn't even realize my car could accelerate that fast from a dead stop. He clocked me going the other way and I knew I screwed up. No one to blame but me. I did catch a break in court. I paid the full fine but the judge dropped the points. I was grateful and said thank you, esp. considering a younger guy (19) lost his license for a year for 20 over.

You guys have a hard, thankless job which the pay does not reflect. I'm a mechanic and my boss knows the Asst. Chief of our county. He's a great guy as well as the other officers he sends to our shop. The problem is we typically encounter officers when it's going to cost us money and people get jaded by that. Like I said, I've gotten my fair share of tickets but I treat all the officers whose cars we repair with complete respect and considering they're usually repeat customers I'll often greet them by name.

 

[kennyb]

Late last spring my wife and I were taking our sick dog to the vet. The appointment was for 18:00 and we were about 10 mins late and 10 mins away. I was on the cell phone with a client and blew through a 35 MPH zone doing 49. A State Trooper was running that section of road and stopped us. He said I was doing 51 in a 35, but I had the Garmin on and the max speed had registered as 49 and I showed him. After about 10 mins he came back with the citation at 49, in the meantime the dog threw up again.

I elected to go to court to fight the points. My trial time was 14:30 and the trooper was eight mins late. The magistrate was on the phone until 14:56. Just me and the trooper in the courtroom, and we were BS-ing about the State Police phasing out the Jeep Cherokee for the Ford Expedition, and what a great, fast vehicle the Cherokee was as compared to the huge Expedition.

The trooper was in uniform, and I had on a navy blue Brooks Brothers blazer, gray Brooks Brothers trousers and a mint green shirt with a blue and green striped rep tie, and polished black oxfords.

The magistrate entered, we rose, and sat. The magistrate read the case particulars, then explained to me how the hearing was going to proceed with the trooper presenting evidence and then I would have a chance to present my side and any supporting evidence. He asked if I had any questions and I asked if I could make a statement. Granting my request, the magistrate listened as I said I was not present in his court to protest the fine or the charge, I admit to being over the speed limit. I explained that we were late for an appt at the vet for our sick dog, and I was on the cell phone with a customer. I told the judge that my driving record was clear for the first 17 years since I had moved back to PA, and I had two citations in as many years for being over the limit, both times I was on the phone. I told the magistrate that the cell phone was the common denominator, providing a distraction to my attention to driving. I also sincerely told the magistrate that I stopped using the phone while driving, and if I get a call I pull over, or ask the caller if I can call back. I again told the magistrate that I was not contesting the fine, and that I'd plead guilty to a charge that did not carry points, but the important thing I took away from the incident was that I no longer use a cell when I drive (and I don't).

That turned out to be a hot button with the magistrate. He got started on how he hates cell phones, and he was all in favor of me not using one while driving. He asked me if it was OK with me that he reduce the speed to 39 MPH because then there would be no points, and the violation itself would remain the same, which would not cause the trooper any issues during a future review. A "win-win" of sorts. I agreed, and the magistrate asked the trooper if he was OK with it, and he was. The magistrate gaveled the hearing and asked that I wait for the paperwork and a refund check for part of the fine that was based on the speed, the difference betw. 39 and 49 mph. I got a little under $40 back and the papers. The magistrate told me to "call right away" if I got a notice from Harrisburg about points, because I should not; he said he had the clerk enter the reduction in the system just then, and I should not get any points. He again stressed that I "call right away" if I did get a notice and not respond to it, and let him take care of straightening out Harrisburg.

The magistrate then put out his hand and he, the trooper and I all shook. the magistrate went to his chambers, and the trooper and I stood outside the courtroom BS-ing for another 20 mins about what I did for a living, our kids and pets (he asked if the dog was OK), and his retirement that was two years away and he couldn't wait. I apologized for holding him up. "You're not holding me up," he said. "I'm only going to work."

I still don't use a cell phone when I'm driving. And I can tell you the location and speed of any speed limit sign on any of the routes I take in the regular course of my work.

Noah

well stated noah...many cases are conducted in a similar fashion...shame is many do not know this...glad it worked out for you